Eighth Annual Report on the BEAP Database

Featuring Julia Guevara

&

Melissa Baker-Boosamra

Phoenix, AZ

March 19, 2009

• Assist in assessing program objectives• Promote on-going program monitoring• Provide a starting point for assessment to

which programs add their own methods• Allow creation of a database to allow

programs to compare themselves with national data

• Contribute to the knowledge base of social work education

BEAP Purposes

Baccalaureate Education Assessment Project Team Members

Vicky BuchanBrian Christensen

Dori FosterRuth Garretsen-McCane

Annabelle GilbertTobi DeLong-Hamilton

Grafton HullPhilip Ng

Roy “Butch” RodenhiserMarshall Smith

http://beap.socwk.utah.edu/

Sample Profile Overview of all Respondents

2000-2005

Respondents

2006

Respondents

2007

Respondents

2008

Respondents

Overall

Respondents

Entrance 20,953 3,839 3,205 1,655 29,652

SWVI at Entrance 21,499 3,881 3,260 1,345 29,985

Exit 11,892 2,326 2,435 1,671 18,324

SWVI at Exit 9,705 2,213 2,246 1,287 15,451

Alumni 3,871 563 379 215 5,028

Employer 1,326 266 160 73 1,825

Totals 69,246 13,088 11,685 6,246 100,265

Sample Profile Response Rates

Instrument2000-2005

Average %

2006

Average %

2007

Average %

2008

Average %

Overall

Average %

Entrance 96.2 95.0 96.5 97.4 96.4

SWVI at Entrance 96.1 95.0 96.4 98.1 96.1

Exit 93.8 92.3 94.7 94.4 93.8

SWVI at Exit 93.9 93.2 94.2 95.3 94.0

Alumni 42.0 42.2 39.6 38.6 41.6

Employer 30.5 28.4 29.0 30.6 29.9

Educational

Plans

2000-2005 %

N=11892

2006 %

N=2326

2007 %

N=2435

2008 %

N=1671

Overall %

N=18324

Have Future Educational Plans

82.9 83.1 83.2 84.4 83.1

MSW 75.4 77.3 77.6 79.4 76.3

Other MA 13.8 12.3 12.2 11.4 13.1

Other BA 2.9 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.9

Note: Percentages equal more than 100% due to multiple self-reported future educational plans.

Future Educational Plans-Exit

Current Employment Information 2008 Alumni/ae- Field of Practice

2008 Alumni/ae

n=154

Overall Alumni/ae

n=3826

Aging/Gerontological Social Work

16.9%

Child Welfare/Child Protection

19.2%

Child Welfare/Child Protection

14.3%

Mental/Behavioral/CMH

15.8%

Mental/Behavioral/CMH

13.6%

Aging/Gerontological Social Work

10.8%

Mental Retardation/Developmental Disabilities

8.4%

Family Services

7.8%

Health/Medical

8.4%

Health/Medical

7.6%

n= number reporting

Region I—Southeast*

Knowledge, Skills and Value Scores by Deciles

*Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana, Tennessee

Percentile Group

Knowledge Skills Values

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean

10 3.58 6.00 5.48 3.92 5.92 5.23 3.60 7.10 6.13

20 6.08 6.67 6.45 6.00 6.69 6.32 7.20 7.90 7.58

30 6.75 7.25 6.97 6.77 7.23 7.02 8.00 8.20 8.04

40 7.33 7.58 7.45 7.31 7.62 7.52 8.30 8.70 8.51

50 7.76 7.92 7.82 7.69 7.92 7.83 8.80 8.90 8.83

60 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.23 8.06 9.00 9.20 9.05

70 8.08 8.33 8.20 8.31 8.54 8.40 9.30 9.70 9.54

80 8.42 8.83 8.85 8.62 8.92 8.74 9.80 9.90 9.86

90 8.92 9.33 9.08 9.00 9.23 9.05 10.0 10.0 10.0

100 9.50 10.0 9.88 9.38 10.0 9.80

Region 1 Public BSW Only Programs

Percentile Group

Knowledge Skills Values

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean

10 3.25 5.42 4.55 2.85 5.23 4.47 2.90 6.90 5.87

20 5.50 6.08 5.83 5.38 6.00 5.82 7.00 7.60 7.37

30 6.17 6.58 6.36 6.08 6.69 6.33 7.70 7.90 7.80

40 6.67 7.00 6.86 6.77 7.00 6.89 8.00 8.30 8.06

50 7.08 7.33 7.19 7.08 7.46 7.25 8.40 8.80 8.61

60 7.42 7.67 7.53 7.54 7.85 7.69 8.90 9.00 8.97

70 7.75 8.00 7.89 7.92 8.00 7.98 9.10 9.30 9.19

80 8.08 8.25 8.18 8.08 8.38 8.24 9.40 9.80 9.60

90 8.33 8.75 8.49 8.46 8.92 8.75 9.90 9.90 9.90

100 8.83 10.0 9.72 9.00 10.0 9.32 10.0 10.0 10.0

Region 1 Public Combined Programs

Region 1 Private Denominational BSW Only ProgramsPercentile

GroupKnowledge Skills Values

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean

10 3.08 6.00 5.46 4.00 6.23 5.55 4.90 7.60 6.62

20 6.08 6.83 6.53 6.38 7.00 6.77 7.70 8.00 7.94

30 6.92 7.42 7.15 7.08 7.69 7.42 8.10 8.40 8.23

40 7.50 7.67 7.58 7.77 7.92 7.83 8.50 8.90 8.73

50 7.75 7.92 7.83 8.00 8.00 8.00 9.00 9.20 9.07

60 8.00 8.17 8.03 8.08 8.38 8.23 9.30 9.50 9.39

70 8.25 8.50 8.38 8.46 8.85 8.60 9.60 9.80 9.69

80 8.58 9.00 8.23 8.92 9.23 9.09 9.90 9.90 9.90

90 9.08 9.67 9.34 9.31 9.77 9.56 10.0 10.0 10.0

100 9.75 10.0 9.95 9.85 10.0 9.98

Region 1 Private Non-Denominational BSW Only ProgramsPercentile

GroupKnowledge Skills Values

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean

10 3.00 5.83 4.98 2.69 5.85 5.12 5.00 6.70 5.93

20 6.00 6.33 6.08 6.00 6.23 6.13 7.00 7.80 7.46

30 6.42 6.83 6.61 6.38 7.00 6.76 7.90 7.90 7.90

40 6.92 7.17 7.05 7.08 7.38 7.27 8.00 8.00 8.00

50 7.25 7.42 7.33 7.46 7.62 7.52 8.20 8.60 8.43

60 7.50 7.75 7.60 7.69 7.85 7.78 8.80 9.00 8.97

70 7.83 7.92 7.85 7.92 7.92 7.92 9.10 9.30 9.18

80 8.00 8.17 8.10 8.00 8.08 8.01 9.40 9.70 9.60

90 8.25 8.92 8.64 8.31 8.69 8.46 9.80 9.80 9.80

100 9.00 10.0 9.67 9.00 10.0 9.50 10.0 10.0 10.0

Bachelor Social Work Student Ratings of Social Work Skills and Advising Experience: An Analysis of the National Baccalaureate

Educational Assessment Package (BEAP) Exit Survey Data

Tobi DeLong-Hamilton, LCSW, PhDColorado State University

March 19, 2009

Social Work Skills & Program Demographic Findings

• Students in the smallest SW programs (0-24) rated SW skill level higher on 7 of 13 skill questions

• Students in private SW programs (denominational and non-denominational) rated SW skills higher than public SW programs

• Students in BPD region 6 rated their SW skills higher than students in 2 other regions

Advising Experience & Program Demographic Findings

Program Auspice

Quality of Advising: Public Private-D Private-ND

Course selection & curriculum planning

6.59 7.45 7.17

Career planning 5.83 6.73 6.56

Professional advising 6.39 7.31 7.22

Advising Experience & Program Demographic Findings

Program Type

Quality of Advising: BSW BSW/MSW

Course selection & curriculum planning

7.08 6.12

Career planning 6.42 5.16

Professional advising 7.00 5.70

Advising Experience & Program Demographic Findings

Program Size

Quality of advising: 0-24 25-49 50-74 75-99 100+

Course selection & curriculum planning

7.26 6.70 6.54 6.06 5.66

Career planning 6.62 5.91 5.78 5.12 5.12

Professional advising 7.21 6.49 6.26 5.89 5.48

Advising Experience & Program Demographic Findings

BPD Region

Quality of advising: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Course selection & curriculum planning

7.08 6.85 6.66 6.85 6.53 6.96

Career planning 6.54 6.18 5.90 5.96 5.69 6.16

Professional advising 7.05 6.72 6.47 6.62 6.20 6.84

Recommendations for Social Work Programs

• Establish a culture of assessment• Explore importance of faculty establishing

relationships with students• Recruitment & retention of non-traditional

students– Different needs for non-traditional students– Provide options for non-traditional students

Foundation Curriculum Assessment Instrument

Versions 3-8

• Version 3 1 Test 65 ?s n=305• Version 4 1 test 55 ?s n=381• Version 5 1 test 82 ?s n=286• Version 6 1 test 74 ?s n=36• Version 7 1 test 72 ?s n=318• Version 8 1 test 64 ?s n=392 TOTAL = 1718Note: overall 1817

Baccalaureate Education Assessment Project

Foundation Curriculum Assessment Instrument

• Practice (13 questions)• Human Behavior in the Social Environment

(10 questions)• Policy (9 questions)• Research (9 questions)• Ethics and Values (8 questions)• Diversity (8 questions)• Social and Economic Justice (7 questions)

Practice

• Determining progress toward goal achievement is one facet of the _____ stage.

– a. Engagement – b. Evaluation – c. Assessment – d. Planning

HBSE

• The concept “person-in-environment” includes which of the following:a. Clients are influenced by their environmentb. Clients influence their environmentc. Behavior is understood in the context of one’s

environmentd. All of the above

• The enactment of the Personal Responsibilities and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (TANF) resulted in:– a. Widespread dissatisfaction with relative responsibility

measures – b. A large decrease in the number of welfare recipients – c. An end to unlimited entitlement programs – d. A decline in poverty

Policy

Research

• Using random sampling (based upon probability theory)... – a. Subjects within the population have a better than

average chance of being selected to participate – b. Guarantees that the sample is representative of the

general population – c. Allows results to be generalized from the sample to the

population from which the sample was drawn – d. Is equivalent to random assignment

Ethics and Values

• A social work student beginning her internship is told by her supervisor to not tell clients that she is a student since this might undermine their confidence in her. According to the Code of Ethics, withholding this information could:– a. Be acceptable because of the student’s obligation to

the supervisor and agency– b. Constitute dishonesty and misrepresentation– c. The Code of Ethics does not apply to this situation– d. None of the above

• Which of the following statements is not accurate regarding women?– a. Female social workers receive lower pay on average

than their male counterparts– b. Stepping out of the workforce for a few years to raise a

family is likely to negatively affect a woman’s career– c. Women workers are more likely to encounter a “glass

ceiling”– d. Women are equally represented in social work

executive positions

Diversity

Social and Economic Justice

• A belief that those with the greatest wealth have an obligation to help provide for those with the least is part of which perspective?– a. Equal prosperity– b. Economic Justice– c. Distributive Justice– d. Liberation Philosophy

Version 8 Pre/post test scores

• Pre test mean 30.92 n= 152• Post test mean 40.84 n= 79

Pretest Post test Standard Deviation

t -value p-value

30.92 40.84 6.845 12.875 0.000

Test-retest

• To establish reliability• Version 8

– Tested in a junior practice class– Students took test twice– 2 weeks apart– Pearson’s correlation coefficient

• r = .86

Mean Scores by program level

• BSW entering 30.92n=173

• BSW exiting 40.84n= 79

• Foundation (MSW) (enter) 36.39n=131

• Advanced Standing (enter) 40.56n= 9

Potential Education Level Testing

–Entering BSW students–Graduating BSW students –Entering MSW foundation students–Exiting MSW foundation students–Entering MSW Advanced Standing

Thank you to each of the following!

Version 8 Testers

Bethel University, Minnesota

Boise State University, Idaho

Colorado State University, Colorado

Dominican College, New York

Fayetteville State University, North Carolina, Texas

Fort Hays State University, Kansas

Marian College, Wisconsin

Metropolitan State College, Colorado

Pacific Union College, California

University of Hawaii, Manoa, Hawaii

Field Placement Assessment Instrument(FPAI)

• Literature shows – Ongoing requests for a uniform, comprehensive,

standardized assessment instrument (Bogo, et al, 2002) (Bogo, et al, 2004) (Dietz & Barton, 2004)

– A tool focused on academic and non-academic measures of field competencies (Burke, 1999)

• Second piloting phase in process• Third piloting phase is recruiting

• Initial Pilot was conducted May 2008

• Assignment of ID Number• Field Instructor

Information• Explanation of Instrument• Explanation of Likert Scale• Additional Feedback form

information• Mailing location of

completed survey

• If your program is interested in being a part of the national pilot, please contact Dr. Brian Christenson at blchristenson@lcsc.edu

• Ms. Dori Foster at djfoster@lcsc.edu

• Bogo, M. Regehar, C., Woodford, M. Hughes, J. Power, & R. Regehar, G. (2002).Evaluating a measure of student field performance in direct service: Testing reliability and validity of explicit criteria. Journal of Social Work Education, 38(3).

• Bogo, M., Regehr, C., Power, R., Hughes, J.,Woodford, M., & Regehr, G. (2004). Towardnew approaches for evaluating student field performance: Tapping the implicit criteria used by experienced field instructors. Journal of Social Work Education, 40(3).

• Burke, J. (1999). The assessment anomaly: If everyone’s doing it, why isn’t moregetting done. Assessment Update, 11(4).

• Council on Social Work Education. (2008). Educational policy and accreditation standards. Retrieved September 23, 2008 from: http://www.cswe.org/NR/rdonlyres/2A81732E- 1776-4175-AC42-65974E96BE66/0/2008EducationalPolicyandAccreditationStandards.p df.

• Christenson, B. & Foster, D. (2008). Field placement assessment instrument. Lewis-Clark State College, Social Work Program.

• Dietz, T.,Westerfelt, A., & Barton, T. (2004). Incorporating practice evaluationwith the field practicum. The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 9(2), 78-90.

http://beap.socwk.utah.edu/

Groups

• New users – getting started• Experienced users – feedback• Foundation Practicum field test• Foundation Curriculum final pilot test